[lucky]

No, it does not. A person can only use, at the most, a few goods at one time.

Not really. I, for example, often use hundreds of computers at the same time for my geeky hobbies.

[Fasces]

Really? At the exact same time? All of them? In what capacity?

[AFAIK]

Fasces has obviously never dated an Asian. My gf has 2 phones, 1 of which holds 2 sims. She regularly switches models too.

If everything was free then many phones will be thrown away or ignored in draws, behind furniture, etc. Like paper is today.

[lucky]

Really? At the exact same time? All of them? In what capacity?

Yes, all of them, at the same exact time. I like to run large computations on them. For instance, I've run board game simulations in order to optimize my board game playing programs I have entered into tournaments.

[Fasces]

Fasces has obviously never dated an Asian. My gf has 2 phones, 1 of which holds 2 sims. She regularly switches models too.

Regardless, there is a limit. She only has one mouth and two hands - I fail to see how she could actually use more three of them at the same time.

Yes, all of them, at the same exact time. I like to run large computations on them. For instance, I've run board game simulations in order to optimize my board game playing programs I have entered into tournaments.

You need to physically type at hundreds of computers at the same time to run these computations? I doubt it. How many modules do you physically occupy and use at one time?

[lucky]

You need to physically type at hundreds of computers at the same time to run these computations? I doubt it. How many modules do you physically occupy and use at one time?

Lol what? No, I don't have to get physically close to them in order to make use of them. What do you mean by "physically occupy" a computer? I don't personally enter inside their CPUs, but what's happening inside those CPUs is useful to me. What do you mean by "type at a computer"? I use network connectivity to communicate with them and control them, ultimately using a keyboard that is far away from them.

A computer is not a personal physical device like a massage chair that works on my body, the distance is irrelevant to their purpose.

In any case, if you provided me with free computational power, I would be happy to use many, many more, I don't see a limit.

[Fasces]

In which case, you're not physically using hundreds of computers. You're using one - like I said, a person is limited by the number of goods they can use at any one time.

Those servers would exist in the Technate as they do now - and we're not using them to run your calculations, they'd be available to run those of others.

In any case, if you provided me with free computational power, I would be happy to use many, many more, I don't see a limit.

Even if the limit is astronomically high, I do not believe a single human being can use "infinite" computing power at any one time - which, when discussing whether a post-scarcity environment exists, is the only limit that matters. Either something is infinite, in which case there will never be a post-scarcity environment, or it is finite, in which case there could be (even if it is unfeasible).

[lucky]

The limit for useful computational power is infinite for all practical purposes, because many computational problems require exponential resources to solve, and that's unlikely to ever change. For example, if I had a universe full of CPUs and it was really at $0 cost to me, I could use it to satisfy my curiosity about whether white can win at chess, or to find prime factors of Fermat numbers, look for counterexamples to the Goldbach conjecture, or any of a myriad of other computational problems that strike my curiosity on a given day and can only be solved with astronomical resources.

and we're not using them to run your calculations, they'd be available to run those of others.

They are not being wasted now. I rent the servers by the hour.

What you're saying is that their price will go to literally $0 and yet available to all takers. While they are very cheap now in the historical context, their price can't possibly go to literally 0. That's a ridiculous assertion. You need either a price mechanism, or some other rationing protocol.

[Fasces]

The limit for useful computational power is infinite for all practical purposes

It either is infinite or it isn't (which it is not).

Now, in the case where society had adopted a post-scarcity economic model because 99.99% of goods were abundant, I imagine that the practical solution would involve rationing of the few scarce commodities left. It is also possible this might be seen as improper usage - similar to taking a Porsche, crashing it on purpose, taking another, crashing that one, etc and lead to limits.

[lucky]

It either is infinite or it isn't (which it isn't).

If it's not infinite, it's exponential, and thus much bigger than what the universe can possibly supply (at least as far as we know physics today). That's what I meant by "infinite for all practical purposes".

Now, in the case where society had adopted a post-scarcity economic model because 99.99% of goods were abundant, I imagine that the practical solution would involve rationing of the few scarce commodities left.

Goods that people used to primarily demand (food) are already abundant, like Eran said. There is no need for a "techrate" for those goods to become cheap and widely available. Rationing has been shown again and again to be a greatly inferior allocation mechanism, I don't see what the purpose of switching to it is.

[Fasces]

If it's not infinite, it's exponential, and thus much bigger than what the universe can possibly supply (at least as far as we know physics today). That's what I meant by "infinite for all practical purposes".

The keywords being in parenthesis there. If, in the case that computational power were impossible to be in abundance (though, remember redundancies would no longer exist - if someone is wasting X amount of computational power solving Fermant, no one else would have to) then I imagine the Technate would ration that good. The Technate does ration energy, for example.

Goods that people used to primarily demand (food) are already abundant, like Eran said. There is no need for a "techrate" for those goods to become cheap and widely available. Rationing has been shown again and again to be a greatly inferior allocation mechanism, I don't see what the purpose of switching to it is.

Because a market does not work for abundant goods.

If you think it does, I'd like to charge you $5 for this bag of air I have here. It's a good deal. You need air to breathe. Should I send you my PayPal information?

If market systems are maintained for abundant goods, you get attempts at creating artificial scarcity - DRM being a prominent example in the field of software at such an attempt.

[lucky]

If you think it does, I'd like to charge you $5 for this bag of air I have here. It's a good deal. You need air to breathe. Should I send you my PayPal information?

It might be a good deal, but I have a better deal, so no thanks...

If market systems are maintained for abundant goods, you get attempts at creating artificial scarcity - DRM being a prominent example in the field of software at such an attempt.

Software is not abundant... Software gets constantly created at great cost. It's a huge labor market.

Intellectual property is hard to protect, and you get externalities, and it's an interesting discussion of how to best make those markets work, and there are different models. E.g. government finances a lot of research and subsequently provides it to users for free.

But that's a different case from other markets, like the computational power market I provided as an example, or the market for food or whatever. It works very well the way it works, no need for rationing computational power. Give me a reason to switch it to a different model. As it becomes more abundant, it becomes cheaper. It's already extremely abundant by historical proportions. I pay $0.10/hour for computational power that would have cost thousands of $/hour 50 years ago. I see no problem being solved by rationing this, problems would only be created.

[Fasces]

It might be a good deal, but I have a better deal, so no thanks...

Yes. Because it is abundant.

Software is not abundant... Software gets constantly created at great cost.

Once created, software is abundant - I can create copy after copy after copy after copy at no additional cost and distribute it online at no additional cost to anyone who wants it, whenever they may want it. There is no scarcity. I cannot "run out" or "sell out" of digital software.

It's already extremely abundant

Abundant refers to something specific - it means that a good is no longer scarce. Air is not scare. Air is abundant, because there is more air than everyone human being currently on earth could feasibly consume, whenever they may want to consume it. (If you go to space or underwater, air ceases to be abundant).

Food is still scarce. Not every human currently on earth can eat as much food as they want, of whatever food they may want, whenever they may want. Even if food is less scarce than it was historically, it is not abundant.

A piece of software is much more like air than like food.

Money, and the market, is ultimately nothing but a mechanism to ration/allocate scarce goods efficiently. If a good is abundant, it does not need to be rationed. If it does not need to be rationed, the market serves no purpose. Why should society keep a mechanism in place that serves no purpose?

Now, in the case that some goods will always be scarce. The free market system is dependent on the fact that the vast majority, if not all, goods are scarce and that markets are the most efficient way to allocate all those goods. However, if the vast majority of goods are abundant, this ceases to be the case. If only a few goods are scarce, it is arguably more efficient for society to ration what isn't, than expend energy in maintaining free market institutions for those goods.

When the net energy expended in maintaining a market system is greater than the net energy expended in rationing scarce goods, it no longer makes sense to maintain a market system.

[lucky]

Now, in the case that some goods will always be scarce. The free market system is dependent on the fact that the vast majority, if not all, goods are scarce and that markets are the most efficient way to allocate all those goods. However, if the vast majority of goods are abundant, this ceases to be the case. If only a few goods are scarce, it is arguably more efficient for society to ration what isn't, than expend energy in maintaining free market institutions for those goods.

When the net energy expended in maintaining a market system is greater than the net energy expended in rationing scarce goods, it no longer makes sense to maintain a market system.

Are you expecting this sometime soon? I'm trying to understand the context. If this is something you think will happen in a completely different world, 1000 years from now, it seems ridiculous to worry now about overhead energy cost of having the concept of money. That's such a minor problem, worry about it when the time comes...

If some goods become abundant, the "abundant" goods are no longer part of the economy, since their cost is 0 or almost 0. If nothing replaces demand, the economy (GDP) will simply shrink. I don't see it happening. But even if the economy does shrink somehow, I am still unconvinced, puzzled even, by your reasons for replacing markets with rationing. What does market size have to do with it at all?

Energy overhead expended in maintaining a market system?? What the hell are you even talking about? Poor African countries don't have trouble with having the concept of money, not to mention this futuristic world. It seems to me like you're rationalizing change for the purpose of change itself, just so that you have something to discuss.

If anything, it's the running of whatever rationing institutions the markets get replaced with that creates unnecessary overhead. They need to figure out what people want, then make those allocation decisions as a third party, and prevent black markets, instead of just letting people buy what they want. Not to mention the political problems with having a disinterested third-party make economic decisions for you.

But the problem with rationing isn't even primarily an overhead of running the institution. It's the sub-optimal allocation of resources that this sort of thing invariably results in.

[AFAIK]

Are you familiar with agricultural subsidies, Lucky?
Do you know that many countries literally pay people to throw things away- cash for clunkers for example- in order to maintain consumption, employment and profit?
The law of diminishing returns makes price systems unsustainable and many (all?) complex societies that have collapsed did so due to the burden of rent seekers who extracted so much wealth from the population that people opted out of the society, declining to repel invaders or rebuild following disasters.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/477. ... _Societies

[Fasces]

Are you expecting this sometime soon?

According to Technocracy Inc. the North American continent was capable of achieving abundance in the 1930s.

I am not quite optimistic about that.

I'm trying to understand the context.

If subsistence agricultural was replaced by manoralism, and manoralism was replaced by mercantilism, and mercantilism was replaced by capitalism, what system may, perhaps, replace capitalism? It is merely an attempt to answer the question of what such a society may look like. The ideology is the belief that contemporary society should be reoriented toward achieving this state as efficiently and stably as possible.

But even if the economy does shrink somehow, I am still unconvinced, puzzled even, by your reasons for replacing markets with rationing. What does market size have to do with it at all?

Maintaining essential capitalist institutions, such as currency minting facilities, stock exchanges, banks, arbitration courts, or any expenses associated with maintaining artificial scarcity may become less efficient, as measured by net energy expenditure of society, than simply rationing the few goods which are still scarce.

It's the sub-optimal allocation of resources that this sort of thing invariably results in.

Markets are structurally incapable of perfect efficiency. They are far superior to most attempts at central planning, of course, but the perfect planned economy is more efficient than the perfect market economy.

Even if rationing fails to be perfectly efficient, it may still be more efficient for society as a whole to ration a few goods at sub-optimal rates, than maintain a market economy when most goods are abundant.

[AFAIK]

I forgot to mention that technocrats envision a 95% drop in crime as this is the amount that is 'money motivated'. No reason to kill, rob, defraud, prostitute, deal drugs, etc. for financial gain. Any material wealth you desire is available on demand free of charge. This would present a huge saving to society and the state. There would also be no more war for resources or territory. No trade conferences. No complicated tax codes.

[lucky]

Are you familiar with agricultural subsidies, Lucky?
Do you know that many countries literally pay people to throw things away- cash for clunkers for example- in order to maintain consumption, employment and profit?

Yeah... what does that have to do with post-scarcity? These are pretty minor parts of western economies. I don't consider these programs indicative of a deficiency of price systems... more like a deficiency of democracy. Their purpose isn't really to maintain consumption/employment/profit, as much as giving up part of the income in an economy to political rent-seeking, as you yourself allude to. And to a lesser extent as a controversial strategy for smoothing out societal transitions.

The law of diminishing returns makes price systems unsustainable

Huh? That's not what my economic books say. On the contrary, that's what makes prices work nicely.

[Fasces]

Yeah... what does that have to do with post-scarcity?

Each abundant good within a market system would have to have similar programs to introduce artificial scarcity.

Their purpose isn't really to maintain consumption/employment/profit

That is quite literally their purpose.

[lucky]

I forgot to mention that technocrats envision a 95% drop in crime as this is the amount that is 'money motivated'. No reason to kill, rob, defraud, prostitute, deal drugs, etc. for financial gain. Any material wealth you desire is available on demand free of charge. This would present a huge saving to society and the state. There would also be no more war for resources or territory. No trade conferences. No complicated tax codes.

This makes no sense: if you're proposing a policy for what to do *after* everything is cheap, it makes no sense to ascribe all that wealth and wonderful benefits of it (like, less crime) to that policy.

It's like proposing a policy today that all cars be painted blue, and then saying "oh look, you can drive a nice blue car instead of riding a horse cart, isn't our policy fantastic?".

In order to make such claims, you'd need a policy for *how* to make stuff cheap quicker, rather than what to do after it's already happened.